Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Jeremias's page

242 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 242 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Looks really great and fun!

A few things were unclear to me:
- How is the technology tree shaped? A graphic would be nice.
- I didn't understand how the PCs could get higher-level starting characters and more starting equipment. Or at least the rules were hazy to me.
- What is the time-frame? Should the campaign be stretched over 200 years? Is aging of PCs a thing?

And an idea:
- Dynasties and families. Incorporating rules about having kids and inheriting traits or such things. Even material goods like heirloom weapons and spellbooks. That is something you almost never see.

Overall, a great concept and I really love the idea. But then, I was always a sucker for Civ-Games.


Mythic crafting just allows you to use any craft feat.

But thats alright. I don't plan on crafting staves for something else.

I just calculated a little more: Scrolls get much more cost-effective if you have time for the consuming... At least 2nd-Level-Scrolls. :)

Hm, my rules question stands unanswered? Is it really so easy and I am right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I will have every crafting feat soon. Mythic game.

But yeah, thats a good consideration. I'm just wired to think that using consumables is bad. I always finished CRPGs with TONS of potions and scrolls.
I think I will go with the staff because I like the feeling and don't want to start sky-high with the character (creating a new one on level 7). But I have also planned to buy scrolls in bulk and later make them in bulk.


Hi Folks!

I have a rules question and wanted to ask for advice.

First the rules question:

Quote:
Consume Magic Items (Su): The arcanist can consume the power of potions, scrolls, staves, and wands, using them to fill her arcane reservoir. Using this ability is a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity. When using this exploit, the arcanist adds a number of points to her arcane reservoir equal to 1/2 the level of the spell contained in the item (o-level and 1st-level spells do not recharge the arcanist's arcane reservoir). If used on a potion or scroll, the item is destroyed. If used on a wand, the wand loses 5 charges; if it has fewer than 5 charges, the wand is destroyed and the arcanist gains no benefit. If used on a staff, it loses 1 charge and the arcanist gains a number of points to his arcane reservoir equal to the level of the highest-level spell the staff can cast using only 1 charge; if the staff has no spells that require only 1 charge, the arcanist cannot consume that staff 's magic. No more than 1 charge can be drawn from a staff each day in this way. Points gained in excess of the arcanist's reservoir's maximum are lost. This exploit has no effect on magic armor, weapons, rings, rods, wondrous items, or other magic items besides those noted above.

Does it really mean, that staves are not subject to the "you get points equal to 1/2 of the spell level"? So, a Staff of Minor Arcana (Shield 1 Charge) can supply Arcane points?

And secondly, if a have days with combat and days without, is this really such a bad deal?


I would say no, the location has to be fixed in the time-space-continuum... But thats only an opinion, no RAW anwser.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@LazarX
;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTccvj0gc58


Knight Magenta wrote:

Fun fact, If your target is within 30ft you can sneak attack with your trebuchet.

*BOOM*
Suprise! Bet he didn't see that coming.

There must be something in the rules against this!


I didn't know this fact and find it very interesting. Especially for the mental attributes. This gives me a lot more information for RP as both a GM and a player.


I don't use 3rd party books. For my last campaign I went with "PRD only". No particular reason, but I was always wary of 3rd party stuff and sometimes it can be pretty overwhelming and mind-boggling.

That said, posting his build could net you better help. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say, the situation looks a little bit railroady. If I would be *forced* to do something I don't want to, I would be peeved. She was *forced* to go into the tunnels.
I don't like the "The DM hints"-game. It is a pet peeve of mine and I even go to deliberate lengths to avoid this. Give me an IC clue, but OOC clues I will ignore. For me, the fun is to play the game, nut just being told where to go and then roll some dice to kill bad guys.

That has, by the way, nothing to do with V:tM LARP. I've done that since '99 (not the past three years) and you can have groups with very differing play-styles. In one group, it would be more railroady, seemingly like your gaming group, in another group it would be much more open-ended. Guess, which one I preferred. ;)

What I suspect it is a difference in play-style between her and you. Your group seems very democratic and cooperative and you have no mechanisms (IC or OOC) to deal with internal strife. She seems to like internal discussions, even having a very stron opinion about things. That is more of an OOC issue, you should just talk about that. Be like "We don't really want this part of RP games, could you keep that out too?". Because be assured, for some of us, thats an important part.

If all of this is IC, you should not force her character into the tunnels and then not give her any loot. And in the mentioned fight, you should not have killed her enemies. She doesn't want to play with you, thats fine. We have more important enemies over here.


Interesting build, I would probably yank it... Quick question: Canny defense, granted by the kapenia dancer, allows you to use Intelligence as a bonus to AC. Is that also altered by Eldritch Scion?


Uwotm8 wrote:

t.

Sir Google wrote:

oth·er

adjective & pronoun
1.used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.

2.further; additional.

Thanks for the evidence for my understanding... Not sure what you wanted to prove. :)


Uwotm8 wrote:
Then I went to show the consistency between built time and resources to BP equivalence line up such that there is a strong case for it being *a* single farm. There simply isn't enough labor, resources, or GP value in a single BP for many of farms. So, don't say I'm conflating things when I'm showing clear association indirect or otherwise.

OK. If you want to understand that, cool. Then in your game world only one farm is allowed per hex. If thats sits right with you, sure. This farm had a cost of 2 BP, which could be converted (a loss is implied) to 8000 gold. But if thats your game world...

Still, by RAW "other improvements" means exactly this: "other". Not "any". Even I get that. And I'm not a native speaker...

And if you even care about game balance: Having multiple farms stacking is very, very wonky. Claiming a hex and building a farm will pay itself (if consumption is higher than 1) after three months: Pay 3 BP (farm+hex), raise consumption by 1 (hex) and decrease consumption by 2(farm), net consumption -1, after three months you have your intial investment back (again, if consumption was higher than 1). So, farms are great, even if you have to claim more hexes.


Chemlak wrote:
Quote:
An improvement marked with an asterisk (*) can share the same hex as other improvements.

A farm is not an "other improvement" to another farm. It's the same improvement. Therefore no stacking.

This. Exactly this.

Especially as farms have a very big impact on your economy... A kingdom with 9 hexes of farms can support standard edicts (4 consumption) and a city with 5 districts, that would be 45,000 citizens. That is big. And only 10 hexes, a very small kingdom.

And yeah, common misconception: A farm improvment is not a single farm, but more like farmlands.
When I translated the rules for my gaming group (english to german) I used exactly these terms.

What I have to revisit: The part about combining farms and mines and such.


@Gilarius
I'm not sure if you were aware of the condescending tone in your last post. Probably you were. You are right, yes, I read the spell wrong. I admit that. As said earlier, it can always be my reading competence (non-native speaker). Next time just give this argument the first time. Without being like that.

With that said, the bracers sound awesome. I will get them ASAP.


@Gilarius
It only works for bows and crossbow. So, with a firearm, it doesn't give you anything.


@N. Jolly
It could be my reading competence. But I thought you meant all 'slingers.


@Gilarius

The Bracers would be dead weight on my gunslinger. It only works for crossbows.
And I compared my suggestions with the charm bracelet he suggested. :)


Why do you think "Bracers of Falcon Aim" are so great? What do they give to pure Gunslingers?
Wouldn't it be nicer to have something like this:
[url]http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/seduc er-s-bane[/url]

Considering the bad consequences of being enchanted...

Or this:
[url]http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/arrow master-s-bracers[/url]

And for shoulders, look at this:
[url]http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/m-p/ponch o-gunfighter-s[/url]

What do you think of Cleric dipping for nice domains and spells like "Air Bubble"?


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
What I do think is limiting is thinking that our societies 2 intelligible genders are the only possible ones.

In german we use the term (literally translated) "biological sex" and "social sex". For me, gender and sex was always the same term, but gender is more like the german "social sex", right?

I am a very tolerant person, so I would give everybody the right to call himself whatever he wants, be it male/female/genderfluid.

But in biological terms I cannot understand what this is about. There is a XY chromosome and a XX chromosome. There are rare deviations from this which are mostly not very benign. And thats it.

So, when I talk about "male" and "female", I certainly mean the biological terms. But what a male/female is and how he/she has to behave has nothing to do with that.
So, trans people are, in my mind, people with a problem with a their biological make-up and should be helped, so they can switch in the more appropriate sex.
How someone behaves has nothing to do with "I am a male" or "I am a female". It just has to do something with "I am myself". And everybody should be him- or herself.

Loooong post. What I take from that for RPGs:
In a world where it is more important to survive against enemies I'm not interested in how stereotypically someone behaves, but more if this person kills monsters.
If someone wants to switch genders in game, I still would be "Meh. As long as you can still swing your sword, allright."
But then, I'm OK with female soldiers or female priests and find it laughable that someone would not be OK with that.


On the contrary: I loved the randomness of misfires. My DM didn't, so he gifted me with a reliable rifle with a zero chance of misfires. But I liked them. Not as a balancing mechanic, but as a fluff thing. ;)


@N. Jolly
No, I admit I was a little bit offended.

I'm still not sure it is a great idea. But you seem to have put a lot of thought in it, so good luck. Just go slowly as JoeJ advised to not alienate your players.
And one advice: If they are immature about the topic, drop it like a hot potato. Nothing ruins friendship then forcing a talk about things like this (or religion or politics).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@N. Jolly
Really? You asked about what potentially transphobic people would do with your enlightenment idea. And I said, answering that, that as a non-transphobic person I don't care for this enlightenment idea. And you concentrate only on this first statement about how I described me?

I find the idea of a trans person interesting, but what I don't care for is forced enlightenment during a fun game. And thats something you should keep in your mind: Do your players want just a nice game of dungeondelving or a deep roleplaying experience? If it is the latter, have fun with your idea. If it is the former, I wouldn't recommend it.

But your role as a GM certainly is not that of a teacher in social tolerance. Keep that in mind, please.


@N. Jolly

I'm not sure if the goal of roleplaying games is "enlightenment". Are you certain you want to bring up something which could end in snickers?

I am not really transphobic (it doesn't really interest me which gender someone once were), but I wouldn't be interested in an educational trans NPC. As all my characters have to deal with really weird things (like demons or freaky aberrations), they would just shrug at something like a trans person. Mostly because I as player would shrug about that.


Still not broken. Repeating yourself doesn't change that.

I concede that double-barreled is cheese. I don't use that.

Touch AC + Dex to Damage is great. I like it.


Oh yeah... Great combo. My Gunslinger also has a big barbarian friend with a big hammer. Mostly for the same reasons. ;)


Great! Then use a rifle. But treat it like a baby, because the sunder monsters are lurking under the bed. ;)


Fantasy is mostly about things which were once epic and great and about picking the remnants of bygone civilizations to overcome obstacles.
Science Fiction is often about discovering and building new things to overcome obstacles.

So these two don't mesh easily. Most fantasy works have a unrealistically slow research rate, so everything is still status quo.
Take for example the biggest modern offender: Game of Thrones. For hundreds of years the scientific progress in metallurgy was non-existent. Tolkien did the same.

So, in a technology-based setting we would expect to see development which we are not accustomed to in fantasy-based settings. Hence, the opinion of many people: Science and Magic cannot coexist.


Your DM already has accepted that a rifle can be reloaded as a free action with Rapid Reload? Because that is, at the moment, not clear by RAW. My DM allowed it but I had to ask him.


Last session I used the Targeting Deed on a Hag's arms so she let go of our dwarven cleric. This could work with other GMs too.

I would like to ask: What is more important: Improved Precise Shot or Signature Deed? How often do you need (as a Musket Master, p.e.) a specific Deed or how often is cover a problem?
Because, from my experience, cover is more often a problem (especially soft cover because of my comrades), especially if you took the Snap Shot feats (because no AoO against enemies with cover!). For that reason I would recommend taking Improved Precise Shot.


My GM made one houserule:
Monsters get half their natural armor to Touch AC against Bullets.

We agreed to evaluate this for a few sessions and up till now it seems to be OK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jodokai wrote:

Ok, I quit. You're all right. Stopping a melee attacks with a 10' reach is MUCH harder than stoping a ranged attacker. I don't know what I was thinking. My bad fellas. I thought simple logic would win out, I see now I was mistaken.

You didn't use logic, you just iterated the same thing over and over again. Without proof. Even your precious build was doing just half of the damage you tried to insinuate. And this build was horribly optimized.

So yeah, you proofed that an optimized martial can kill many baddies in a turn. Bravo.


@Devilkiller

I have listed every magical item he could buy at Level 12 after buying a +1 reliable, greater distance pistol and a +6 belt. First thats not very much and second it is quite unrealistic in normal gameplay.
At least it should be compared to undone's build.
But it still will never 240 damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jodokai wrote:
I'm not sure where you're getting "all his pistols" He's using ONE gun. Yeah, read that again and take your time. I'm not using some tail exploit or pre-nerf weapon cords. It's ONE gun. Double that if I used the tail. Hell if I really wanted to get creative and use random buffs like the barbarian is, he uses UMD and casts Unseen Servant and reloads that way.

Who is this "HE" you talk about?

Is it this one:

Jodokai wrote:


So let's compare that to the Gunslinger 12th level

Str 9,
Dex 23,
Con 12,
Int 7,
Wis 16,
Cha 7

Feats
Deadly Aim,
Point-blank Shot,
Precise Shot,
Rapid Reload,
Rapid Shot,
Reckless Aim,
Signature Deed

Gear
+1 reliable, greater pistol, alchemical cartridge (paper)

33k on a gun and it destroys your barbarian.
4 attacks 5% miss chance (+16/+16/+11/+6) on all of them and they each do 1d8+17 +3d6, with a zero chance of misfire.

So... You are talking about a 12th level character. Thats news to me.

But lets talk about your "easy" build.
1. Attributes
Min-Maxing Cheese. Suuuure, no optimizing here... Really, that are some interesting stats...
2. Attack Bonus
Seems legit. But only if you really take Reckless Aim which would lead most barbarians to hit you, not only the fire giant.
3. Damage
You took Signature Deed for Up Close and Deadly? Allright.

So, you can deliver, against AC 9, exactly 138 damage. In a Full Attack.
With this famous +6 Belt, it would be 152,95 Damage.

So, lets see, without "Distance" on your weapon:
- How often can you stand exactly 20 foot away from the fictional giant?
- Everything above a distance of 25 ft. means you have to move: No full attack, damage drops to 35 damage. And the enemy will charge you

With Distance, you will still be in charging distance... But lets talk about Distance and the +6 Belt.

You have 16,000 GP left over.
+1 Ring, +1 Amulet, +2 Mithril Chain Shirt, +2 Cloak of Resistance, you have 3,000 GP left over. At this point, Muleback Cords are highly advisable... So you have 2,000 GP left over. Suddenly the prices of your ammunition is important... Lets look at your other stats:
AC: 27
F/R/W: 11/19/9
HP: 22 + 11D8, so around 72.

Sorry. Not viable.

So, to conclude: Setting up a Min-Maxed strawman is no way to convince me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:


Jeremias wrote:
That said: I still don't get how this fictional pistolero could reload all his pistols. cnetarians routine wouldn't work with me (a pistol really doesn't count as a "small object"!).

It should. Pistols are pretty small (4 pounds) and if you get THAT limiting on the tail's usage it becomes a completely useless ability. I don't wanna do that, prehensile tails are fun plot devices. Switching your tail back and forth to hold each pistol as you reload is a bit ridiculous, but so is reloading as a free action in the first place, so you have to roll with it.

I have tried this just now by grabbing a 2kg object from the ground. Nope, neither small than easy. And a pistol is no light weapon, it is a one-handed weapon.

So, how does all of this compute without the reloading shenannigans?


Just one little thing to add: Pistols don't have Touch AC at 30 feet. You have to burn grit for every shot.

Quote:
*So you know I'm not exaggerating: 1d8+20+3d6 per shot = 35 damage per shot. 4 shots with rapid = 140. + 4 shots with the double barrel = 280

So you would need either 8 grit (unlikely) or you have to take Signature Deed which means your enemy will have cover (because no IPS). At least in my group we use cover. A lot.

And 8 shots without a misfire? The probability for that is 27%. Not very likely.

Quote:
As a final thought, the reason people don't bat an eye when the Barbarian hits like a tank is because he rarely gets to do it. Full attack actions and pounces are so hard to come by with any regularity people cheer when it actually goes off. The reason people hate ranged so much, is because it ALWAYS goes off.

Really? I would say this is not the case... In our last fight the barbarian had around 3-4 full attacks in 4-5 rounds. And the enemies were not grouped together or something like that. He used two pounces. In the same time I had as many full attacks.

That said: I still don't get how this fictional pistolero could reload all his pistols. cnetarians routine wouldn't work with me (a pistol really doesn't count as a "small object"!).


Jodokai wrote:


You're probably getting point blank in there too for +1 to hit and damage.

Nope. I stay out of 30 foot range. In the last fight we had, I had for one full round (out of 8-10) PBS.

Jodokai wrote:


Jeremias wrote:
So, average damage on every hit ist 19.5. Against a AC of 10 (highly unlikely)

The bolded part you stopped being honest. Look the the CR 11 monsters. The vast majority of monsters have a touch AC of 9 or less, but okay, I'll give you a 10

I don't really have time to look up lists. From my experience with Touch AC I considered it to be higher, but OK. Maybe I was wrong. Still it's really not unreasonable to suspect my enemies to be wary and use some kind of spell. In the last fight, three of five enemies had the opportunity to use spells... (The Lamia from Book 3 of RotRl and a few cronies)

Jodokai wrote:


Jeremias wrote:

I hit every shot but the last with a 95% success rate and this one with a 75% success rate. The DPR formula puts me at 21 pts per damage for the first three attacks (because of the high crit modifier) and 17 pts for the third attack.

Added, this is around 80 damage.

With point blank it's an 80% and 1d10+15 You're going to hit with 4 shots 80% of the time and that will average 82 points of damage.

Still no PBS. And are you really debating about two points?!

Jodokai wrote:


Jeremias wrote:
At Level 10, our barbarian did something like 2D6 + 22, average is 29 pts of damage. With an attack bonus of +20. And with pounce, he often has a full attack. If he is not put down by a crit, he does around 60-70 damage per round. With two attacks.

Why is his to hit 6 points higher than yours? The only difference should be your Rapid Shot gives you an extra -2 so, assuming same building style he'd only be +2 compared to you. Power Attack is -3 so that equals deadly aim, where are the bonuses he's getting you're not? And if you look, your average damage is 82, his is 60-70 and that's IF he gets a full attack.

As said, he pounces often. For his attack roll, I would say it is a combination of this three things:

Rage Strength (+2)
Better Weapon (no need for a "reliable" enchantment) (+1)
No Rapid Shot (+2)
And probably something else. I only now that he added 20 on his die roll. And with this player, it is to 99.9% legit.
And you didn't read the part about him being level 10. I compared a level 11 martial to a level 10. He will get greater rage, a third iterative, etc. He will get a lot stronger when he has leveled up.
Jodokai wrote:


Again why are his saves better? A gunslinger gets high Fort AND high Ref, a Barbarian only gets high Fort.

He is superstitious. Like I said. Great Saves. And don't forget, he has 150% of my hitpoints...

Jodokai wrote:


Jeremias wrote:
But hey. Gunslingers are so OP. I'm sure that I am just a bad player with no amount of system mastery. Sure.
It's kinda what it's sounding like.

Nope. I have a very high system mastery. I was being ironic. I play PF since 2009 (as GM and player) in a weekly game.

I have a low tolerance for people who try to tell me how OP some martial is when I have seen firsthand what the spellcasters can do. Or when I see how easily the barbarian would crush me. Or, or, or.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jodokai wrote:
I'm pretty much done here, you guys don't want to see it cool. It works in your games, great, but you're the minority. Look around at all the threads complaining about Archers. Gunslingers do everything archers can but use touch AC's, so they never miss, and do DEX to damage.

Lets be honest: I call BS. I play a frigging gunslinger and I cannot outdamage the barbarian. As said two posts earlier: I get to only 70 DPR, even against an AC of 15! And I do not pull my punches there...

Against AC 10, assuming RS and DA:

Attack: +14/+14/+9/+4 (BAB +11, Dex +6, Rifle +1, Weapon Focus +1, Rapid Shot -2, Deadly Aim -3)
Damage: 1D10 + 14 (6 from DA, 6 from Dex, 1 from Rifle +1, 1 from Weapon Training)

So, average damage on every hit ist 19.5. Against a AC of 10 (highly unlikely) I hit every shot but the last with a 95% success rate and this one with a 75% success rate. The DPR formula puts me at 21 pts per damage for the first three attacks (because of the high crit modifier) and 17 pts for the third attack.
Added, this is around 80 damage.

At Level 10, our barbarian did something like 2D6 + 22, average is 29 pts of damage. With an attack bonus of +20. And with pounce, he often has a full attack. If he is not put down by a crit, he does around 60-70 damage per round. With two attacks.

So, from my game experience: The theoretical damage of my level 11 gunslinger is lower than the actual damage of a level 10 barbarian, even considering a very low touch AC.

And add to that the high probability of getting shafted with a Save or Suck. The lowest save of my barbaric friend is higher than my highest save (Ref 17 vs Ref 16).

But hey. Gunslingers are so OP. I'm sure that I am just a bad player with no amount of system mastery. Sure.


Oh man, I do something totally wrong. I have a DPR of only 50 vs. AC 20 and 70 vs. AC 15. With a Rifle (advanced Firearm) and Deadly Aim/Rapid Shot and Weapon Focus and a Dex of 22. At Level 11. I'm such a bad gunslinger... *sadface*


Gunslingers are really not overpowered. As said before, I am playing one and our barbarian dishes out much more serious damage. I mean, my maximum damage is kinda low for his average damage! And he has no "Come and Get Me!". Just superstitious barbarian with an earthbreaker. And I don't want to speak about the witch, cleric or sorcerer in the group. No, not really OP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the fact that you can use the sleeves to just change your whole clothing. I'm not interested in the disguise or these things, but just the glittering illusion of a new suit as I want it is really neat.


Fascinating... Our superstitious barbarian does more damage than my advanced firearm gunslinger. But we are only level 10. ;)

No really, I suspect wrong weapon cord things, wrong Touch AC distance and wrong misfire interpretation.


Great magic items for Brawlers:

Belt of superior maneuvers (+1-+5): Even the +1 gives you another use of Martial Flexibilty.
Gauntlets, Giant Fist: Free Bull Rush on Unarmed Attack
Monks Robe: Gives you a higher Unarmed Damage and AC. AC Bonus can vary a bit, depending on the interpretation of your GM.
Armbands of the Brawler: 500 GP for a +1 to Grapple CMB/CMD.
Skullcrusher Gauntlets: 1/Day Knockout (on a successful save still staggered), +2 DC for the class ability "Awesome Blow". Expensive...
Amulet of Mighty Fists: Especially for Unarmed Builds.

Just a few I have planned to nag my GM about.


It should be this one:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oeex5gvqzepopmx/auldgrenebeltmappe.jpg?dl=0


ElementalXX wrote:
Its hardly game breaking,i mean we are talking about monks here, but it doesnt mean its right.

What if it would be a Brawler? Would you consider it overpowered then?

Especially in a group with a wizard, cleric, archer paladin and arcane duelist. All mythic.


Wow. I've never anticipated this response... Very interesting!

Just a quick question: When I took Dragon Style, my GM cleared me for the 1:3 ratio on Power Attack for the first attack (thus he already OK'ed the primary thing). Would it be game-breaking in a mythic game (WotR) to ask if Dragon Ferocity (which will not come online before Level 9, so in about 4 levels) will also grant me the 1:3 ratio?


Ok, I just read a little more.

I'm not sure I can discuss this any more. In the "Power Attack" entry and in the "Monks Unarmed Strike" entry everybody speaks about "natural weapons" or "primary natural weapons". Thing is, natural weapons are not defined. As we are talking about RAW, this is a little confusing. Is it really OK to intermingle "attack" and "weapon"?

And if not, how would a "primary natural weapon" be defined?

I'm not sure anymore... And I'm starting to think that this is true GM country.


As I'm not a native english speaker, I just used dict.cc for the words "effect" and "enhance". It seems clear to me now that, stemming from the broad meaning of both words, that "Power Attacks" change to damage and attack is indeed an effect and also an enhancing one.
If those two words are not more clearly defined somewhere in the book this question is answered to my satisfaction.

Now to something a bit more confusing: Natural Attacks.

"Brawlers Unarmed Strike wrote:


A brawler's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that modify either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
Natural Attacks wrote:
These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls.

I would propose that the brawler (and the monk) just broadly speaks about how this is a natural attack. Natural attacks are either primary or secondary (no other possibility is given!). Speaking mathematically: The set called "Natural Attack" consists solely of the subsets "Primary" and "Secondary", every member of the set has to be a member of the subset. Not only is no other subset defined, but it is stated that no other subset exists ("these attacks fall into one of two categories").

Before discussing further, how do you think about that?


After discussing this yesterday with Turgan, it seems to be two main questions:

1. Is Power Attack an enhancing effect, so the special rules for monks' and brawlers' unarmed strike apply?
2. If that is true, is a natural attack like this special unarmed strike also a primary natural attack?

Is that the essence of the discussion?


Joe M. wrote:


To be clear: I don't really mind if this ends up working (I don't see much harm in it). But I do think that Power Attack's intention is different.

:-)

I'm not really sure that it is feasible to speculate about the intention of a feat in the CRB because the original intention could never have had in mind which books would be published later.

That said, it could be like you said, but on the other hand it is some nice things for unarmed warriors... Still feat-intensive.

And yes, now I'm thinking more and more about dipping in MoMS...

1 to 50 of 242 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.